FAITH SCHOOLS! If you don't agree with them, step this way, my dears.

[onebatmother]

What can be done?

It seems to me that many of us don't agree with them, and some of us (not I) are quite knowledgeable about the ins and outs.

Could we not start a movement?

It's all so wrong, really, isn't it?

Of course they do, I'm not disputing that. I think IB has it spot on when she says that for a lot of people, the church represents a cultural influence rather than a religious one. I also think there are two issues here:

Should any schools select by faith?

Should any religion be taught in schools?

I object to the first but not to the second - I want my children to have an understanding of the religions of the world. Like it or not, they're at the root of most of the shit disagreements that go on.

DS came home the other day saying he wanted to be a Hindu (his BF is one). To me, this is akin to saying he wants to be an astronaut or David Beckham.

I don't see the difference in selection by ability
In fact, a religious school is more likely to have a wide range of abilities and backgrounds than one where selction is based on ability- we all know about the coaching etc for entrance exams
Or selection according to who has the money to pay fees?
Surely that is discrimination against the poor?

I think the way the second is done follows from the first.

Yes, of course teach ABOUT religion (probably under the subject heading of ethics/religion/philosophy - in secondary I'd bundle it with citizenship).

But prescriptive RE/assemblies/collective worship/anything that smacks of 'This is what WE believe' has no place in a state funded school.

I suppose that private faith schools can choose to select by faith if they want.
I think state faith schools should be abolished as they are divisive, and cannot apply to everyone as we are not all Christians.
However, I think that children should be taught about all religions, but not indoctrinated in a particular faith. Faith should be practised in the context of the family and their chosen place of religion.

I think I'd better step away from this thread as I'm feeling exceptionally shallow . Honestly, I really don't think deeply about this kind of thing at all.
Incidentally, what on earth do you all do when you're invited to weddings/funerals in church - mumble? Not go? Personally I think it's entirely possible to sing hymns with great gusto without taking in a word of what they say!

But the people using state schools would be taxpayers themselves
Why is it less divisive in the private sector?

I agree Zog- the whole indoctrination issue is ludicrous.

tinylady - I know selection by ability is contentious. (As a secondary teacher in a comprehensive, & product of a grammar myself, I'm broadly in favour.)

But the distinction I'd make is that parental beliefs don't actually have anything to do with educational needs, whereas abilities & aptitudes do. Whether a diverse ability range can/should have their needs met at the same school is a separate argument to the OP's...

Abilities and aptitudes change, and can be manipulated

OK - maybe indoctrination is too emotive. I mean why should we have to send our children to a school teaching faith as fact, when most of the children in the local community do not have that faith?
I think our taxes should pay for schools that include all faiths - I mean secular schools.
And no problems with participating in weddings, that is a choice.
I think private can do as they like, since you pays your money and takes your choice.

tinylady - so can faith - change and be manipulated.

So yet again, more choice for those with money and less for those without

Yes - that is not fair either!

Yes, absolutely.

But I do think they are more child-centred than what someone's parents believe or are prepared to pretend they believe - which is why I think there are arguments in favour of (& arguments against...) using ability as a basis for selection, whereas I think using parental faith is just plain wrong.

Lots of state faith schools are voluntary controlled, so the buildings and the land they stand on isn't state owned.

If you got rid of state funded faith schools, where would the money come from to buy land and build new schools?

I suppose there is too much money provided by the church to state schools for the situation ever to change.

snap

By some strange quirk of fate, I have spent the evening discussing whether the leap of faith is, in fact, a leap of fear with a Christian friend.

And I've not yet read the thread, which is really pretty rude of me. But I quite badly didn't want to rehearse the debate about whether or not faith schools are justifiable.

I realize that was a rather vain (in every sense) hope, but strangely, even though the debate is utterly familiar, it retains its capacity to wind me up to buggery. So although I'm twitching to pour scorn/high-five, I'm not going to join in and fan the flames. (UQD et al, where do you get your energy from?)

But I'm really interested in paths towards a fair (which imo means secular, but I know we don't all agree, Iorek) education system. Links, petitions etc. But I've buggered up because it's now 11.30pm and it's saturday tomorrow and my brother's just had his first baby and I've got to sew a blanket tomorrow night.

So thanks to anyone who's patient enough to still be around when I get my act together.

Tomorrow, I will mostly be thinking about..
universal suffrage, the foundation of the NHS, and the nationalization of industries in the early 20th century, and wondering whether any of those models would be useful in the reclamation of Education by our otherwise (in theory and law) egalitarian and non-discriminatory social system. Or not.

great. sew the blanket and then sort it all our onebat.
g'nite

out

i disagree with faith schools too, count me in.

'Yes, of course teach ABOUT religion (probably under the subject heading of ethics/religion/philosophy - in secondary I'd bundle it with citizenship).'

But RAVEN, we don't as RE teachers want to be bundled in with Citizenshit (that is NOT a typo either).

I am an agnostic RE teacher who teaches RE as an academic discipline, and like all the other RE teachers in the UK, teaches all 6 major religions. The subject matter at KS3 and 4 would remain the same, especially as the exam boards have massive amounts invested in GCSE RE, whatever it is called. My job is to teach, not preach, and all views are welcome in my lessons.

As for the quotations from the Old Testament earlier - that is the Jewish scripture, which Jesus said he came to supersede, therefore Christians will pay more attention to the New Testament, than the Old.

I have problems with the Academies that teach Creationism, but if you are to abolish Christian faith schools, then you will have a fight on your hands with the totally Muslim and Jewish ones, especially where there is a wish not to integrate into the community, and to keep separate, and a faith school is a way of achieving that.

I don't understand the hostility to faith schools.

My children both attend(ed) a C of E primary.

All that happens is that they get a good cultural grounding in the traditional British faith, as well as an utterly positive and sensitive grounding in other faiths.

I am an unbeliever (so are they). But I don't at all see why unbelief should necessitate an abstraction from a central cultural feature of our society.

The Church is a cultural enterprise, like theatre, sport, and so on. Our society is being ravaged by valuelessness. In the absence of traditional, culturally entrenched values we don't all suddenly become perfectly rational and moral. We are denuded and prey to a nihilistic consumerism.

We need to give our children a rich common culture. That is very far from amounting to religious indoctrination, which state schools shouldn't (and largely don't) engage in.

I'm in.

I made my last post in excessively 'British' terms. I'm not just interested in promoting one strand of traditional British culture. I'm also interested in the preservation of the 'universal' Christian culture, and in other religious cultures.

I'll speak in terms of Christian culture, but I know that it applies equally for other faiths, each of which has a story as stunningly beautiful as the Christian Passion.

The passion of Christ is a moving and beautiful story which functions as a treasure chest to store the most important psychological, moral and spiritual truths of our culture. Its tale of loss and redemption is at the heart of so much of what we feel, and of so much art, music, and literature.

Why would we not want to make it fully available to our children, so that they are in a position to listen to the St Matthew Passion and cry, or to look at a famous painting with a knowledge of (and an emotional feel for) its context, or to read any old story (like the story of Scrooge) and see how it resonates with universal feelings of guilt and redemption?

And it isn't fully available to them if you just teach it anthropologically, i.e. as outsiders. Teach them the fabric and rituals of belief. It is easy to do this without indoctrinating. I know it is because this is the education I had and my children have.